Pedagogical aspects of VLEs

Although later versions of VLEs are usually designed with a significant number of tools and functions, including student-tracking and in some cases, timed content delivery and content-tracking, the pedagogical aspects are not usually made explicit. A range of evaluative strategies have been developed by educators to tease out these implicit system characteristics; hence these strategies can be employed to select systems that reflect a preferred pedagogical model (Britain & Liber, 1999). In our research, it is not the VLE that is the focus of enquiry but a course called Ikarus which is using a Moodle-based VLE as a platform.

Globally, an enormous number of VLEs have emerged over the last few years and their relative functionality is tabulated and compared by Edutools[1]. As authors, we cannot guarantee the completeness of this list, nor indeed, its accuracy. The list can, however, be used to get a feel for how many different VLEs currently exist. In order to choose between the VLEs, there have been a number of evaluations by educators in order to determine their effectiveness. One of the dangers with this approach is that by focussing upon the VLE as an entity rather than as a ‘place for learning’, researchers may be predisposed to look for the overall benefits from the HEI’s perspective; for example, functions such as class management don’t necessarily have any direct bearing upon learning.

A checklist approach which focuses upon the VLE as an entity tends to overlook the specific pedagogical needs of learners according to Stiles (2000)[2]: “The author contends that over-attention on the ‘features’ provided by VLEs can lead to a ‘check-list’ approach to VLE selection, which, coupled with inattention to the educational issues, can result in mere transposition of traditional teaching approaches to the computer, and result in a poor learning experience which is ineffective.”

Quite early on in our project discussions, we considered that one possible alternative would be to use a combination of Chickering & Gamson’s 7 Principles work in conjunction with checklists that were readily available. By shifting the loci of enquiry from the HEI to the learner, we felt the benefits to be had should be demonstrable through either learner-performance, learner-confidence or learner-satisfaction. Some of these facets are clearly much more difficult to measure by us as researchers remotely; without having access to all possible sources of data, we decided that the only way we could appreciate the learner’s perspective was by putting ourselves in the learner’s position as we trawled through their transcripts, logs and questionnaires.

We sought to avoid evaluating a course by putting a tick in a box. Instead we wished to try to assimilate the rich advice within the literature with regards VLEs and use this to help determine qualitative ways of evaluating a course. For us to achieve this, we developed criteria to focus upon aspects that were learner-enabling rather than feature-laden. In order to develop suitable criteria, we looked closely at embedding Chickering & Gamson’s 7 Principles precepts into our enquiry.
 
Firstly however, we looked at the literature concerning VLEs to see what could be learnt from any existing evaluation models. A very brief overview of VLEs themselves is considered useful to put this into context.

[1] EduTools (2004) http://www.edutools.info/course/compare/all.jsp EduTools is an open resource created to help educators/administrators research and evaluate a wide range of e-learning products, services, and policies. Funded by the Hewlett Foundation in the USA to provide independent reviewed, objective source of information, EduTools provides comparisons, reviews, analyses, and automated decision-making tools in Course Management Systems, Student Services and e-Learning Policies.

[2] Stiles, M. (2000) Effective Learning & the Virtual Learning Environment, Conference Paper to UNIS 2000. http://www.staffs.ac.uk/COSE/cose10/posnan.html